User talk:MrOllie/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You failed to suppress information on Private Servers.

You attempted to suppress information regarding Private Servers and failed. Please, if you're going to attempt in enforcing site guidelines then you should actually go over the guidelines you're enforcing.

You could've also help presented additional information regarding Gravity & their relationship against Ragnarok Online private servers but instead, you acted hasteful to disprove despite the info being there with light research.

Based off other Users Talk history with you, and your own claims; you are extremely reliant on citations/sources at an upmost selective level. If you feel that every bit of info needs a reliable source then please, actually act on that and don't be selective about it. Again, lots of information on both the Gravity page & Ragnarok Online page that include(s) 0 to no source yet you didn't have that same energy for those lines of text as you did for mine regarding Private Servers. Your selective biases was at a peak flare. I hope some sort of moderator reads this and can review our revision clash on said pages. Anywho, goodluck wiki editing! 4ReeZy (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep it on the article talk page where it belongs, and consult the policies yourself, including WP:NPA. You should not be coming to my user talk page to make personal attacks. You've still got a bunch of editorializing supported by unreliable sources. No amount of unreliable sources adds up to a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep what on the article talk page? My statement? Once again, you're doing that selective thing. You want me to keep it on the article talk page, yet you literally come to my user talk regarding wiki rules based/because of my Ragnarok Online page edits. It's heavily implied. You also indulged in a revision war enough to claim "stop warring", before coming to my page. Are you going to lie your way out and say your comment on my page wasn't Ragnarok Online related? Are you going to use 0 mention of it as a scapegoat? It'd be a terrible one. I'm fine with unreliable sources, as there's plenty of credible wiki pages that use them. Once again, unreliable doesn't mean fully mean untrustworthy. Your statement is moot. 4ReeZy (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm just respecting the rules on edit warring. Other editors are picking up on the problems with your edits and will revert them in due course, I am sure. And that is warning #2 about personal attacks. If you can't maintain basic civility you are not welcome on my user talk page. I'm fine with unreliable sources - WP:V and WP:RS are core content policies on Wikipedia. If you have noticed other pages with problems, that is not a reason to make problems worse by adding more badly sourced content. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
(by talk reader) @4ReeZy: You received a warning on your user talk page regarding your editing. You, however, are trying to bully another editor on their user talk page, rather than discussing the content issue on the article's talk page. Your efforts to use unreliable/ primary sources to push a POV is problematic. I suggest you calmly discuss on the article's talk page. Do not argue content here, Chris Troutman (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Chris_troutman I'm not trying to bully another editor whatsoever. Look at how this user MrOllie talks to other wiki users, especially the more recent interactions. Need I start citing his unprovoked responses to others to use as an example of what I mean? I simply wanted to remind him the same way he reminded me. He's good at seeming formal, but quickly does that collapse with each reply.
He literally did the same thing to me on my page yet he was issued 0 warning. Is it because I didn't state that he should take it to the article talk page and humored him?
Woah, now you're going as far to even say gameaca is unreliable? That's not even on the list of reliable nor unreliable, but yet has undoubtedly tons off reliable information. Why are ya'll so quick to discredit this information? It's a Korean blog that existed for decades. Pushing a POV is also an insane claim. Nothing of what I wrote comes from my 'POV' if that's what you're implying.
Also @MrOllie warning #2? When did I receive #1? That was literally my first warning... This is my example of what I meant somewhat. You're good at being the real the provoker and playing innocent. Despite your interaction with a few others saying otherwise...
@Chris_troutman This will be the last thing I write here as it was to reply to both you and him. I wont be interacting with MrOllie anymore after this incident. So please, if there's anything else I should know, let's take it to my page I suppose. 4ReeZy (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Responding to warnings about personal attacks with more personal attacks is an odd strategy. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I've left a formal NPA warning on the user's page. Meters (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Censorship

I have cited every line of text in the article and you still remove it for no sources over political bias? Donpohk (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

cited every line of text in the article - now that is clearly not true. But if you consider removing unsourced opinions (and antisemitic aspersions) to be 'political bias', sure. MrOllie (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh

I see you've undone a few, but figured I'd better make yet another probably-futile report as Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Fashion/textiles class is back_again (n+1). DMacks (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's getting to be a tradition. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to try PC-1 any articles that get more than one hit (easily monitored pool, whereas SEMI would likely force them to new articles we aren't as easily catching). So far I did yarn, textile, polyester, fast fashion. Feel free to ping me if you find more. DMacks (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On Supply on Demand Content Restoration

I've found several standard references on the content you've removed few minutes ago. I was about to add those. Aren't those enough?

Examples of positive feedback is that popular products tend to become even more popular:  

Altszyler, E; Berbeglia, F.; Berbeglia, G.; Van Hentenryck, P. (2017). "Transient dynamics in trial-offer markets with social influence: Trade-offs between appeal and quality". PLOS ONE. 12 (7): doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180040

Cheng, Po-Keng ; Kim, Young Shin, Speculative bubbles and crashes: Fundamentalists and positive-feedback trading,” Cogent economics & finance, 2017-01, Vol.5 (1), p.1-28, Article 1381370

Lu, Zhou ; Bao, Te ; Yu, Xiaohua, Gender and Bubbles in Experimental Markets with Positive and Negative Expectation Feedback Computational economics, 2021-04, Vol.57 (4), p.1307-1326.

Liu, Xufeng ; Wan, Die, Asymmetric positive feedback trading and stock pricing in China The North American journal of economics and finance, 2022-04, Vol.60, p.101658, Article 101658

Bao, Te ; Hommes, Cars When speculators meet suppliers: Positive versus negative feedback in experimental housing markets Journal of economic dynamics & control, 2019-10, Vol.107, p.103730, Article 103730

Journal of Economic Dynamics & control, 2019-10, Vol.107, p.103730, Article 103730 Bradelykooper (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the only person who removed this. Once you have made an edit and others have disagreed, you must go to the article's associated talk pages and get agreement from others before proceeding. See WP:BRD and WP:CON for details. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
So, will you review it or I need to post this message to the page's talk page again? Bradelykooper (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, I am not the only person involved. You must go to the article talk pages (not this, my user talk page) so others will see the discussion and weigh in. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
But you are the only one that has reverted my added content. Did someone else try to add the same content before me? Bradelykooper (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
No, I am not. You should be aware of this, the article history clearly shows you reverting another user. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry you are right. I did a few similar edits so I could not recall that it was a revert. When I checked the history I checked the wrong page here Economic model, which you also reverted. Then why did you revert this one? Bradelykooper (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You added redundant references and changed the section titles in a way that does not agree with Wikipedia's style guide. MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly that's kind of funny

I finally saw the deleted comments and, compared to the nonsense I've already dealt with in the last week, it's honestly kind of amusing. They want to "report" me... somewhere... for saying WP:DUCK. LOL I wish them luck. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My favorite ones are the ones who follow up with asking the person they want to report where they should make the report. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
What makes this all the more funny is that I just had a (quite civil) discussion with another long-term Wikipedian earlier today on differing perspectives on what constituted "neutrality" as they were very much in the school of dispassionate reason and stoicism being a path to neutrality compared to my materialist perspective that embeds neutrality in material conditions. So, like, I have been thinking about personal bias and neutrality quite a bit. Then this person comes in with "you have a bias" and I'm like, "OK time to back up to the 101 version." Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I often think that one of the ways Wikipedia misleads newbies is with the title of WP:NPOV, which really does not match up with 'neutral' as many would define it. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Frankly the concept of neutrality is one of the ones that is probably hardest to define; certainly everybody on Wikipedia is aware that Wikipedia has implicit biases. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Bias towards whom? Trade (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Mainstream science, WP:CHOPSY opinions, and generally anything that English speaking computer literate people know about, at the expense of topics relating to the developing world. Oh, and our stats on biographies about Men vs biographies about Women are way out of proportion. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Well the anglosphere for one. Generally Wikipedia is pants-on-head bad at anything to do with contemporary politics outside of "the West". Wikipedia also has an implicit bias derived from its philosophical underpinnings regarding the nature of knowledge and verifiability. This certainly creates a *skew* to Wikipedia such as how little attention is paid to power relations in ascertainment of neutrality. We can see the impact of that such as in the discussion of Howard Zinn right now at WP:RS/N and the way it discusses Marxist historicism. Many of these biases don't arise out of any bad-faith attempt to put a finger on the scale so much as a value mis-match regarding the nature of neutrality in itself.
Also everything MrOllie just said. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikivoyage have similar issues when it comes to the "Safety" section Trade (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk Page:Sweet Baby Inc.

Do you feel the current semi-protection is sufficient? Trade (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's manageable at the moment. Maybe another ANI thread or two will be needed if autoconfirmed accounts insist on disrupting the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Mr.Ollie!

Ahh, I'm new to editing! Thanks! Could you add the link to an external links section, please? I do not know how and I'm slightly busy right now. Thank you. Manik Sharma 2012 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It should not be added there, either. Wikipedia is not a link directory. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
ahh, so even then, can you add it anywhere else? if you can, please do. If you can't, thank you anyways! Goodbye! Manik Sharma 2012 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi

@MrOllie, Hello, a question according to the article Queen of Psalm 45 in which places does it need to be supported because as far as I know, is the sources supported or is there some place that is not? I wait your answer. Thank you. English Mary (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page, please do not start duplicate discussions. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Coolmath Games mention from Ruffle article

Hello, could you explain your rationale for removing the mention of Coolmath Games from the Ruffle (software) article while leaving similar mentions of Armor Games and Neopets? I don't see how one is more promotional than the others. Iltjp (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

About reviewing my user page

Hello Sir, Myself Dharmarajsinh, I am kinda a new Wikipedia user and editor , I made my user page today , can you please review it. Rathod Dharmarajsinh (user) 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

About lucid dream edit

Hello Me.Ollie

I want to know why did you removed my edit, nothing was wrong, I just added some external links for more information, then too you removed it for no reason


Restore it back anyhow , as soon as possible..... Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link directory. Adding those links was off-mission for an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually I wanted to add it to further reading section, but I don't know how to edit that whole formatted structure
So it will be great if you add those links back to further reading section pls.... Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ingate System

Hi MrOllie,

Your comment that a second source is required for the addition to the Wiki page. I thought we were the second source, because we found the verifiable public record at the Massachusetts Superior Court. Are you say it has be in local news article to be a second source. Its easy to find the information in the court system and its fact. Would you prefer that the paragraph is reworded? I saw an article out on TMCNet that point us to the court case.

Kkequalizer (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I said a secondary source, which is not the same thing as a second source. Wikipedia does not use court documents as sources like that. Wikipedia would need something like a proper news source, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and so on. Something like TMCNET which is routinely just reposting press releases generally does not qualify. We need these sources to establish than an event is of sufficient importance to the history of the company to be covered. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Lodewyk van Berckan edit

I have spent the past 3 years extensively studying the history of diamond cutting. I greatly expanded on the history of Lodewyk van Bercken and included a lot of detailed, well researched information that is not included in the wiki. I added significant value and do not understand why you flagged it as spam.

The edits I added to the Diamond Cutting page add signifincant value and include a lot of useful information that is not included in the current article.

Just because I am referencing a link does not make it spam. I thought we were supposed to support everything we add with sources... Verginasun (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use blogs or other self-published websites as sources. Repetitively adding your business website to Wikipedia is in fact spamming as it is defined here. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


TCP edit

Hi,

You delete not only my contribution but also the contribution that was years old. One of the diagrams you deleted was present on that page for years. And I do not understand why you are deleting those diagrams. They are in SVG format and you can scale them as you like. Could you, please, add them back? What needs to be published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transmission_Control_Protocol&diff=1217081030&oldid=1217076095

Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need illegible pictures of text, nor does it need embedded external links. We cannot 'scale them' because they have to fit in the article, where we correctly give most of the space to the actual article. MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
But One of the images was on that page for at least 10 years. Just take a look. It wasn't added by me. And it was very useful for a lot of technical people.
Also the images are in vectorial format (see Vector graphics), this means you do not need to scale them. Just click on them an you can see in the size you want. Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am aware of how long the older image was there. That an unhelpful image has been on an article for a while does not mean it can never be removed. I am also aware of the format of the newer image. It still did not improve the article. MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
In my professional opinion as Linux Administrator with over 25 years experience both of them are very helpful. I would like to understand how did you decided that is unhelpful? What are the criteria? Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGE. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
So if I use upright=scaling factor to display them larger, is it ok? Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
No. The image is unhelpful and should not appear on the page. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean unhelpful? Sorry I genuinely do not understand. First image you can see it even in RFC9293.How do you determine that is unhelpful? Please explain. How can I make it better? Mircea.Vutcovici (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not need the image. It does not help the readers, thus it is unhelpful. MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrocomputing links removed??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retrocomputing&diff=prev&oldid=1217485066

No inappropriate external links were added by me in the additions to retrocomputing wikipage. I linked to a series of podcasts which are very much on point and cover dozens of interviews with people of great significance in the home computing revolution of the 1980s. Eg. this includes interviews with one of the sons of Jack Tramiel, who also participated in the development of the 8-bit Atari operating systems.

My second link is to a popular and afaik only serial port device within the Atari community that provides internet connectivity to such 8-bit systems.

Did you remove both links? Why would you deem these to be inappropriate??

Also, going over the one change of yours that I've linked above, you furthermore removed my addition to the Logo lang in the Education section, which is precisely a language designed for educating youth in computer programming, geometry, and logic.

I don't see what you're doing here as being possibly anything of benefit to wikipedia readers. 38.49.92.228 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link directory, we don't host links to people's podcasts, nor do we recommend particular products. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Casting aspersion and personal attacks

Tank you for your action for removing mass reversion and personal attacks against myself. D.Lazard (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help, though I imagine we will have to keep an eye on 106.220.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a while. MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Spam

Hi! You do great work reverting spam! Can you do me a favour and let me know about any throwaway accounts adding spam links you see, or report them somewhere like Wikiproject Spam? I don't need a lot of information and feel free to save them up. I'm seeing a lot of attempted SEO coming from Pakistan (strangely often spamming for companies in the UAE) but checkuser on spam accounts very often leads to more spam accounts. In case you're wondering, this is the edit that prompted the request—I'm about to block several spam accounts that are obviously connected. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Pornography discussion

Can you explain if the websites, casetext.com, jolt.law.harvard.edu, cornell.edu, and justice.gov are not reliable sources, original research, or not verifiable? Especially when they are websites...some of them .edus and .govs...and the particular cases specifically...explicitly...state the words porn, pornography, and/or pornography dealers referring to them being relevant to the topic? My next edit request is going to include those and an explanation of how they violate wp:or and wp:v if they do is desired. From the previous discussion it was implied that those sources are not reliable when they are referencing a court verdict. I have not read that i cannot use a website that speaks of a court verdict no matter how many times i read it. Which section of wp:or or wp:v if any that it falls under when citing text from the websites or quotes from the websites? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing the talk pages discussion is not an invitation for you to keep making the same repetitive arguments on my user talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oooh...okay...Wp:notforum was listed: "You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles."
So that's why I did...Hope you can have a nice day. Edit: "Even if they were, that does not support what you're trying to add to the article" Thank you very much for this specific reply, it gives incite to the main problem had.173.80.7.142 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content?

Hi, I recently attempted to update the Wikipedia page for Kentico, focusing on providing accurate and up-to-date information about our company's history, product evolution, and current leadership.

I understand that my edits were not accepted due to concerns regarding promotional content. I would like to assure you that my intention was solely to correct outdated and incorrectly placed information. As a representative of Kentico, I recognize the importance of neutrality and factual accuracy in Wikipedia content, and I strived to adhere to these principles in my edits.

The information I provided is crucial for an accurate representation of Kentico in the public domain, especially considering the rapid changes in our industry and our company. I believe these updates will significantly benefit readers seeking current and unbiased information about Kentico.

I respectfully request that you reconsider the edits. I am open to suggestions and would be happy to work with you to ensure that the content meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. If it is more appropriate, I would also welcome any assistance or guidance from experienced Wikipedia contributors in making these necessary updates. JonathanKentico (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @JonathanKentico: Wikipedia is a private entity and we have no obligation to keep articles current, let alone accurate. Wikipedia makes tens of millions of dollars annually in donations so we do not share your assessment of what our readers want. Because you have a conflict of interest you may request edits by posting to the article's talk page but we do not welcome you editing the article itself. Further problem edits will be reverted and you might end up blocked if you do not abide our conditions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I respect your perspective on the editorial process and understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Given our differing views on the significance of keeping publicly available information accurate, I must reconsider my reliance on Wikipedia as a primary information source. I believe that incorrect or outdated information can be more harmful than no information. Therefore, if updates to our page are not feasible, I would like to request the removal of the page and any other content related to Kentico to prevent the dissemination of potentially misleading data. 84.42.217.230 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This isn't your company's social media profile - you don't get to control it, and there is no process available to delete it because you are unhappy with it. Also: have a read of WP:PAID, which will explain most of the problems you and your coworkers have been having here. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello

How do I include the fact that there are platforms which support AI for Autism in the content ? Arthijaiswal86 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't, because Wikipedia is not a place to post advertising or link spam. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Hello MrOllie, Hope you are doing well. i just want to know that how Wikipedia consider reliability of sources as many of my edits were deleted because of this. even though information was accurate. Kindly inform me about this.

Thanks

~~~ Kapil KapilBhardwajWiki (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is explained in on your own user talk page. But in a nutshell: Stop adding links to geeksforgeeks. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Removal of Legitimate Citations

I am sorry, but it seems that you are following my contributions and removing them on incorrect grounds. I would like a proper explanation of why legitimate references are being removed. Circus Bazaar Magazine is a pet Wiki project for me that I have been trying to get approved over a period of several years now. It is a well-established printed and globally distributed magazine based in Norway and Australia, yet for no apparent reason, you will not allow it to be referenced alongside its very well-established contributor base. Monsieur Loya (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Monsieur Loya: So it seems that you are interested in advertising your own website (circusbazaar.com). When that got deleted, you started spamming other articles with circusbazaar.com as a citation because you're not here to write an encyclopedia. You can quit editing now or we can have you blocked. Which will it be? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I actually do not think that I have any hope here. Circus Bazaar Magazine is a printed publication available in stores all over the Nordics, with a wealth of international contributors. Yes, I tried to produce a Wikipedia page for this, and to my great surprise (and after a lot of research), it came under complete attack and was taken down. I have made various contributions to many articles, but the creation of this page seems to be prohibited based on the assumption that I am somehow involved with the publication. Isn't it a mechanism of credibility, and with the hope to one day gain acceptance on this, that its authors reference it in their pages—as they do with other publications? I do not understand the moral landscape here. It seems unduly hostile. Monsieur Loya (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Long time editors have been on Wikipedia long enough to have seen patterns of editing. And when an editor writes a promotional article (which gets deleted) and also adds external links to the subject of that promotional article it almost always points to a conflict of interest. But whether you are being paid by them or not matters less than the pattern of promotional editing that is happening here.
If you were here help us build an encyclopedia (and not here to promote Circus Bazaar Magazine) I suggest you move on to something else, since repetitively adding links to their website is going to be viewed as linkspam. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
When one sees a clear gap in something that needs to be filled, one then takes on the task to fill it. Such is clearly the case here, trying to establish a perfectly notable publication as part of the Wiki project. Regarding things that matter less, I would have thought that both your points here would actually matter less than factual accounts of an author’s recent publishing history.
Such is the case with Michael Soussan’s recent article in Circus Bazaar Magazine on the Ukraine war.
Promotional language would suggest selling something, using exaggerated language, or genuine spamming. None of these definitions hold weight here, as the addition of utterly legitimate publishing history is none of these.
It is, in fact, nothing more than a true and legitimate statement of fact that adds to the richness of this platform and the depth of true bibliographic detail. Monsieur Loya (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Monsieur Loya: Your sophistry persuades no one. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Especially not Ponyo, who has now indeffed Monsieur Loya. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC).

The Mandela Catalogue

Hey do you mind keeping an eye on the article (and by extension the talk page) in case someone makes poorly or unsourced edits that violates BLP? Trade (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for also keeping track of all those attempted COI edits on the "Polyvagal Theory" page. It's nice not to have to do it alone... Oleasylvestris (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Correction: I know there have also been others keeping an eye on this, this is not to undervalue their contributions. Oleasylvestris (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability of my books

Please read this... if you can understand what it says...

https://beginners.re/#uni

https://smt.st/#uni Yurichev (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, WP:EL, and stop writing about yourself on Wikipedia or adding links to your sites. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Goulash

Please explain what you considered a spam citation and why. Also, how did I break formatting? LesMezei (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You broke the article's section headings, and you pasted in a link to 'theasguard.com', which appears to be a small insurance company. MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about the asguard link. I changed it to something else but the system seems to default and revert back to that when I submit the changes. I didn't realize it was reverting. It's not intentional. I'm not sure if it's a bug in the editor or something I'm not doing right. I just put in a new citation LesMezei (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't really use dictionaries as cites much, either. And you definitely should not be filling in your own name as the author of the dictionary. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The system said I needed a citation after claiming that Goulash had a secondary meaning in English. How else can that be cited accept via a dictionary? Sorry about my name as author. I thought it was to name the author of the citation. Can that be left blank. I'm still learning the system.
Theasguard link may be coming from the autofill function in my RoboForm password manager (it's my business email and website). I remove it when I see it but something in the editor seems to be re-triggering the autofill when I change screens or check a help link. I'll have to double check all the fields before I submit anything. LesMezei (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines related to Talk pages

Hi Mr Ollie. At WP:TPO there is the following advice regarding acceptable practices on Talk pages: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.

In this edit by you, you deleted a post on the page Talk:Centrifugal force. It is likely you were in breach of the “basic rule” described above.

Your edit summary said nothing more than “Restored revision 1195063052 by Cewbot”. If you believe you had a legitimate reason for deleting the post, you did not disclose it in your edit summary, at Talk:Centrifugal force, or on a Talk page accessible from the IP from which the post was made.

If you believe WP:TPO is missing something important that would allow Users to delete other User’s posts from Talk pages, please make a submission to the relevant project page proposing that your ideas should be incorporated. Until your submission is accepted by the Wikipedia community, please respect Wikipedia’s guideline that says “do not delete other’s posts without their permission.” Dolphin (t) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk page postings are regularly deleted across Wikipedia when they are violations of WP:NOTFORUM - this is covered by the exceptions outlined below mentioned in the quote you have pasted here. That was an unsigned posting where someone was apparently pasting in a homework question. I don't believe there was anything wrong with deleting such a thing, with or without a specific edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
It would help if you could mention NOTFORUM when removing posts like that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Help with editing an article

Hello MrOllie,

I noticed you focus primarily on editing articles. Please I would appreciate it, if you could help me look over one of my recent articles on an African film Draft:Obara'M.

Your help would be greatly appreciated, thanks Aivrie (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

about the changes in Hierarchical clustering: Revision history

Dear MrOllie,

Thanks for your efforts to make Wiki better and better. Honestly speaking, I really do not know much about the Wiki edit, as I do not have the time to make contribution to the Wiki community. In the page Hierarchical clustering, I saw that there have been seventeen hierarchical clustering criteria listed in the table. I have not made any contributions to this table, but, I noticed that there are only six items with further details in Wiki. Thus, I decided to add something about the item. I may not be good at editing at Wiki environment. As a Wiki editor, you of course have the right to delete my changes if you think it is not in according with Wiki practice. But, the question is that you have further deleted the works of other independent persons that have been contributing to this table. It is really not a small effort to gather information of a total of 17 criteria in this table. If you do not like my change, you can just restore it to the version before April 26, 2024 yourself. This is a version that have been available with the efforts of many people, even though I am not one of those contributors before April 26, 2024. It is definitely not something about self-citation, as I have not done nothing with the version before April 26, 2024.

Thanks and looking forward to your understanding that I am really very new to the Wiki editing. I am deeply sorry if you think that I am doing it for self-citation. 223.16.242.216 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a removal of list item entry without article

Hello!

Context:

Question: Is that because it lacks notoriety? Is it because there's no Wikipedia article on Pijul?

Other cases that might be similar

I searched for a similar removal in your history to see if I could find some reasoning for that type of edit. I found a few that I think may apply, but I'm not sure:

Extra Background Context: I noticed the change because, if I remember correctly I read about or found out about Pijul on wikipedia. But neither the article comparing version control software or the one listing had the entry. So I searched the history and saw that the entry used to exist.

Alef Keuffer (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it because there's no Wikipedia article on Pijul?
Yes. That is a list of software which has a preexisting Wikipedia article. That is also what I said in the edit summary of that change. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

title of "Gulf war" article

@ناشناس879 and MrOllie: I suggest that the title of the article named "Gulf War" at the time I'm writing this be changed to "Gulf war" or "Gulf war (1990-91)" or "Persian Gulf war (1990-91)" or "Gulf war (1990-1991)" or "Persian Gulf war (1990-1991)" but NOT with "War" capitalized, per MOS:AT.

I'm posting this comment here, because the new article "Gulf War" did not have a talk page a minute ago when I tried update my previous post there about this question.

What do you think? DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I returned it to the status quo. If you think some other title is better, feel free to start a WP:RM. Talk:Gulf War absolutely does exist, please direct any replies there. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
ok I changed the article because the official name of this Gulf is the Persian Gulf. ناشناس879 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses common names (see WP:COMMONNAME), not 'official names'. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
In some Arab countries it is called the Gulf. Wikipedia doesn't use common names, it uses official names. ناشناس879 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. Read the link I just posted. MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
That's true, but you should have a source of information about the known name of the bay. ناشناس879 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The article is about the war, not the gulf. (by the way, 'gulf' and 'bay' are not interchangeable) Please don't move articles again until you have a full understanding of how articles are titled on Wikipedia. You can read about that at Wikipedia:Article titles. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you don't care about the name, but it's very important for a nation that the original names are lost. Wikipedia is the place of logical and historical articles, and nothing else. ناشناس879 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand what your response has to do with what I just wrote here. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You don't understand anything! ناشناس879 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia's policies on moving articles (at WP:RM) and titles (at Wikipedia:Article titles). Do not move articles out of process and in conflict with policy again. MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Apache AGE removed from list of notable graph databases

Hello MrOllie, hope you are well. I see that FalkorDB is added to the list of notable graph databases, in Graph database, even though it doesn't have an approved Wikipedia article, nor has an independent source. What is truly necessary to do in order to confirm my addition? Marksoulz (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. FalkorDB was added a few days ago and it looks like nobody noticed. I removed it. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Screencast" article citation removal

Hi, I was curious why you removed the citation that the term screencast is trademarked. Did that link (https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86474355&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch) not come through correctly? (that uspto.gov site is not great at URLs) The term has been trademarked - next year will make a decade. I could send the PDF of the trademark. Or here is a link to the screen capture of the trademark. https://app.screencast.com/9eegQOsoHFlvS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalmediacreators (talk • contribs)

Trademarks are complicated - they are defined in particular industries rather than for all uses and are often unenforceable for various reasons. For that reason, they should only be written about based on secondary sources, not primary sources such as a trademark office search. - MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19&oldid=1222749219"